Karnataka High Court
Sri T N Pandurangaiah vs Sri S Sarda on 12 September, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.2337 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. T.N. PANDURANGAIAH,
S/O THALLAN NARYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED
R/AT CHELLUR VILLAGE AND
HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK - 521021
CHICKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. S. SARDA
S/O IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. SRI. BHASHA @ MOHAMMED KHASIM
S/O LATE ABDUL SHUKUR SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3. SMT. SHAHEENA BEGUM
W/O TAILOR ABDUL
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4. SMT. HASEENA BEGUM
W/O AMEER JAN
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ALL RESPONDENTS ARE
R/AT CHOWDAREDDY PALYA CHINTAMANI TOWN - 563125.
2
...RESPONDENTS (R1 - R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.S.NO.240/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.240/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.240/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO ACCEPT THE VALUATION SLIP FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 31.10.2019 I.E., ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION GRANT AN AD-INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.240/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the orders dated 14.10.2019 and 20.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.240/2015 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Chinthamani (Annexure-C and F 3 Respectively) and consequently direct the trial court to accept the valuation slip filed by the petitioner on 31.10.2019.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and Respondents 1 to 4 are the Defendants 1 to 4 before the learned Trial Court.
3. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to declare him as the absolute owner of A-Schedule property and for a mandatory injunction to remove construction on B-schedule property for the reason that the defendants have illegally put up construction in B- schedule which is a portion of A-Schedule property, despite the revenue records standing in the name of plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff while valuing the suit, valued as an agricultural property, shown market value at Rs.4,50,000/- and paid court fee of Rs.50/- under Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (in short 'KFC and SV Act'). The Respondents, on service of summons, appeared and contended that the suit is not valued properly and market value is supposed to be Rs.10,00,000/- and the trial Court framed the preliminary issue and came to the conclusion that market value is more than Rs.10,00,000/- and directed the petitioner to file the fresh valuation slip by an order dated 14.10.2019. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner filed a fresh valuation slip and shown market value at Rs.220/- per square feet and accordingly, a court fee of Rs.14,190/- is 4 paid under Section 24(d) of KFC and SV Act. The Respondents again objected to the court fee and contended that market value is to be at Rs. 10,00,000/-.
5. Then the trail court upon the conclusion that the suit is not valued properly and the property would not fall under section 7(1)(a)(b) but under 7(2)(d) and 24 (d) of the KFC and SV Act, directed the petitioner to pay court fee within ten days along with the cost of Rs.500/- failing which plaint will be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the current writ petition.
6. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Respondents though served, are unrepresented.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is coming within the municipalities limits based on sub-registrar guidelines, though no material by way of notification was placed on record and therefore, the order impugned is capricious, perverse and liable to be quashed.
8. It was also contended that the trial judge never came to the conclusion that A-Schedule property is not an agricultural property. It was further contended that despite valuing the B-Schedule property, 5 the Court directing petitioner to pay court fee on entire property as non-agricultural land is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
9. Another contention that was raised was that the trial Court erred in concluding that Land Revenue Act ceases to apply where the agricultural lands are included in extended corporation limits and schedule Land is coming under municipal limits when RTC have been produced.
10. After hearing the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the records, this Court has observed that the trial court while considering the Judgment of this Court in 2015 SCC online Kar 8777: AIR 2015 kar 139 (Smt.Vijalakshi V/S Ugama Bai and another) and passed the impugned order dated 20.01.2020. Further, it is observed that while appreciating the above Judgment, the trial Court went on with a wrong view and observed that as per the Sub Registrar of the Chintamani guidelines, the suit properties are within the municipalities limits and the petitioner/plaintiff is directed to pay proper court fee as per Section 7(2)(d) of the KSF and SV Act. As the above Judgment clearly reveals that Land Revenue Act ceases to apply where the agricultural lands are included in the extended corporation limits, irrespective of the fact that the agricultural lands are converted into non-agricultural purpose or not. In the present case, the schedule properties are under Sub Registrar of Chintamani and no municipal 6 notification is produced to show that the same land is within the municipal limits. The trial Court failed to appreciate the valuation slip filed by the petitioner on 31.10.2019, which reveals that the property is assessed under the Land Revenue Act when the RTC is in force.
11. In view of the same, the impugned Order dated 14.10.2019 and 20.01.2020 are hereby set aside and directed the trial Court to accept the valuation slip filed by the petitioner on 31.10.2019 before the trial Court.
The Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv Ct-VS